I believe that the logic being that since they showed it to everyone before it was patented samsung/etc could use the idea. The fact that they then patented it doesn't remove the video.

Not saying I agree with them but I can see the logic they are using.

Whether there should be a window like the US' is an interesting conversation, but I don't think there's any other way to do it in principle. Otherwise, one could end-run the patent limitation by not actually requesting a patent on something until someone else had violated it.

Showing the world you have an invention invalidates the patent for the invention? Yeah, I'm agreeing the German law on this is messed up. Prior art, by Apple, invalidates Apple patent. Riiiight.

It's not so much "prior art" as an attempt to prevent a variation on "submarine patents." If you put an idea out into the wild, without patent protection, and people start using it...then you patent it...that's problematic.

I believe that the logic being that since they showed it to everyone before it was patented samsung/etc could use the idea. The fact that they then patented it doesn't remove the video.

Not saying I agree with them but I can see the logic they are using.

That's pretty much exactly what it is. The public disclosure of the invention means you can no longer patent it in first-to-file jurisdictions (which is most or all of the ones that matter, including now the US), with some minor exceptions. Public disclosure before patenting is effectively giving the public your invention (idea) for all to see (and use if they want).

The business guys hate patent attorneys because they don't want to be told they can't present the product until they have filed for protection.

So if a low level employee accidentally shows off a feature while you're drawing up the paperwork, would you also be screwed? Or if they leak it? Or if someone breaks an NDA?

Yes, except for probably NDA. Efforts to protect company IP always focus on preventing the kinds of things you mention in your first two questions. NDA violation is a violation of a contract, and I have no idea what that would do to your disclosure status.

Patent law, by its very definition, exists to encourage people to publish how their inventions work, in order to further the knowledge of the public. After 20 years, this knowledge is intended to be free for all to use, thus performing a public good.

The irony – and severe twisting that is patent law nowadays – is that not only are patent applications patently (har har) useless for deciphering what the invention actually does, but a patent is awarded for functionality that is essentially evident from watching it happen.

So because Apple would have prior art, would that make it impossible for the concept to now be patented in Germany? Thus Apple's patent is invalidated, but no one in Germany could claim to have invented it.

Showing the world you have an invention invalidates the patent for the invention? Yeah, I'm agreeing the German law on this is messed up. Prior art, by Apple, invalidates Apple patent. Riiiight.

Imagine you're a competitor who sees a demo of an upcoming product, likes a feature, checks it isn't patented, implements it for your next product. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed if twelve months later (when your products may be out already) you hear it's patented after all?

If you put an idea into the public domain, of course that should disqualify you from subsequently attempting to patent it.

Why?

I don't understand why your ownership of something should change just because you told someone about it. The court is insentivising Apple to be even more secretive.

Isn't the whole point of patents to make sure ideas are not kept secret?

We need international laws on this stuff.

There are international laws on this. The point is that if you publish it without getting a patent first, it is fair for everyone else since it assumes that you don't want protection for it. Otherwise you would have applied before showing it off.

Once you put it in public domain without protection, you cannot retroactively ask for protection. Its an balance between sharing and maining ownership. I think it is better in that it prevents submarine patents while encouraging people to file for patents earlier meaning people will know earlier if they are infringing.

So if a low level employee accidentally shows off a feature while you're drawing up the paperwork, would you also be screwed? Or if they leak it? Or if someone breaks an NDA?

Yes, except for probably NDA. Efforts to protect company IP always focus on preventing the kinds of things you mention in your first two questions. NDA violation is a violation of a contract, and I have no idea what that would do to your disclosure status.

I am not a lawyer... But I think it would hinge on specific details of how/why the NDA was violated.

If, for example, you paid someone who works for a competitor to tell you about an invention that hadn't been filed, then you would be doing something illegal and would not be allowed to use that to violate a patent.

However if someone did a snowden style leak published by journalists worldwide, then maybe it would invalidate any future patents.

One of the theories behind Apple's strict NDA for iOS app developers is the new version of iOS has patents that are in the process of being filed. You can tell someone about it under NDA, but not publicly.